Finance Committee on Nov. 26th, 2014

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Yes, that's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Shall clauses 132 to 136 inclusive carry?

(Clauses 132 to 136 inclusive agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(On clause 137)

We shall then move to clause 137. I have two amendments there. I have NDP-1.2 and PV-2. The vote on NDP-1.2 applies to PV-2.

I will go to Mr. Cullen, please.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

This is very similar. This is another part of the act, industrial design and patents. What we heard—and the testimony matters and should matter to the government if it's concerned about taxpayer money at all—is that this as designed right now is going to lead to litigation. The amendment we're making is to have greater clarity for those holding and seeking patents in Canada and to avoid the litigious process, because not only is it expensive, it is a delay in that innovation.

I have a good sense of the way the government is going to vote on this, and my concern is that we're going to regret this later on and only spend money sitting in patent court and other courts rather than dealing with this up front and designing legislation in a way that makes sense.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I'll go to Ms. May, please, for a minute.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm awfully glad that this amendment gives me a chance, because with one minute per amendment, I don't get to respond in the back and forth unless you give me that latitude, Mr. Chair.

If the honourable government members actually think that this requirement for an assessment, “that the failure occurred in spite of the due care”.... If that's what they think it says, then they've been given bad statutory interpretation.

It means what it says it means. It's not discretionary. The requirements of both the amendments you just defeated and this current section use cumulative requirements before the application can be deemed reinstated. It uses the word “and”. It requires that the commissioner make a finding, a determination that the failure occurred in spite of the due care required by the circumstances.

As such, I couldn't agree more with what Mr. Cullen just pointed out and as we have been told by the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada.... I think we all have to acknowledge that the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada deals with intellectual property day in and day out, which none of us do, and their advice is pretty clear: this is going to end up in court.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. May.

For further debate, we'll go to Mr. Saxton.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

The proposed amendment gives the perception of creating two consecutive periods, wherein the requirement to show that a failure to take an action that resulted in the abandonment of the patent application occurred despite due care. I'd ask the officials if they could elaborate on that, because it is our opinion that this amendment is also redundant and that stakeholders will have the opportunity to propose options during consultations as part of the regulatory process.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Who would like to respond?

Monsieur Martel.

[Denis Martel]

The amendment is drafted in such a way that it tries to specify it in a prescribed time period. This suggests that it would be specified later on in a regulatory manner, which is currently in the bill the way it is drafted. There is currently regulatory power to specify the prescribed time period in the regulations. That's the redundancy.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Is there anything further, Mr. Saxton?

Okay, we'll go to the vote on amendment NDP-1.2 then.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I just want to know the process, Chair. I'm not familiar with this. Ms. May seeks a second moment to talk. Can it be sought by committee for an extra small amount of time? I'm not seeking to—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I'm going to clarify this at the beginning. It's not the chair who determines. I know people try to do that, but it's not my determination. It's the determination of the committee. I thought there was agreement among every member of this committee that Ms. May would be provided with one minute per her amendment. That was my understanding. If there's a different method that the committee wishes to instruct the chair to use, that's fine. I will follow that. Did I not have that right?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Yes, you did, absolutely. I suspect the challenge is that, on the occasional amendment of some complexity, there may be a need for something longer than 60 seconds. I don't know what the other members' feelings are towards the odd exception. I know that's not much of a rule for you to follow, Chair, but if Ms. May seeks it, we can move to allow one more intervention on her behalf, because it's such a restrictive process.

I sympathize, Chair. I know we agreed to the set of rules. It's just that, as parliamentarians, we seek to have debate when we can without it burdening the process, and I'm not sure that—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

What is your proposal then?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

My proposal is that, on the occasional one, if it's not cumbersome to this lengthy process that we have, we allow Ms. May a secondary intervention from time to time.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

On the occasional thing, a secondary intervention from time to time....

I mean it's—

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

It's not the most clear direction to you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

All right, thank you.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

You're just a nimble guy. I assumed that—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

This is why I asked for it to be clarified yesterday, and this is exactly what I wanted to avoid.

I need direction from the committee. It's not for the chair to restrict anybody's speaking—

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I understand, and there's no attempt from me to be disruptive about our process at all.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

—because there are three registered political parties on this committee, and there are 10 members on this committee—

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

—so I'm following the rules as applied, and we are, frankly, bending the rules through unanimous consent.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I understand. Allow me this and then I'll leave the issue. I'm not sure how many there are in total, because Ms. May can only speak, I believe, to her own amendments. Is that correct under the rules that are given?